Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation Darren J. Reed University of York, United Kingdom

Abstract This paper applies the analytic practices of conversation analysis (CA) to the visible activities on the music sharing site Soundcloud. Rather than ask whether Soundcloud interaction is like talk, it is understood to be premised upon the combination of different ‘fundamental techniques’ (Manovich, 2007) of technology use and of conversational structuring practice. Audio presentation and textual comment are skilfully combined in the interface to form meaningful interaction through what Goffman (1974) terms layerings or laminations. A parallel is drawn between these ‘asynchronous’ activities and the practices of musical remix, or what is called social remix. In the case of Soundcloud, one fundamental technique is the technology-afforded creation of textual comments, which function in the interface as temporally and spatially positioned, sequentially relevant, next turns in relation to the musical performance. Here the working methods of naturalistic conversational interaction are transferred into the domain of online practices in a knowing way. Social remix speaks to opportunities for mundane, or lay, analytics afforded by playback control and repeated listening, and the knowing production and strategic deployment of conversational methods of sense-making for all practical purposes (Garfinkel, 1967). The analysis shows textual turns that function indexically as ‘single word assessments’, situated within the Soundcloud visualisation and act as immediate and spontaneous responses to the music, and ‘second assessments’ in which a second textual comment is sequentially linked to an earlier one without the need for temporal proximity. The ‘sequential integrity’ ([6_TD$IF]Reed, [7_TD$IF]2001) of these textual activities are actively achieved. Both ‘techniques’ are used to show up the skilled production of meaningful layered action and interaction. In addition, these activities rest on the technological affordances of the Soundcloud application which allow for play, replay, and the layering of textual comments. Layering is one more ‘fundamental technique’; this time of remix practice, and hence this amounts to an additional transference of ‘fundamental techniques’ to online interaction. Crown Copyright © 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper is concerned with, what I will call, social remix practice in the social media site Soundcloud (www. soundcloud.com). It is concerned with an aspect of remix, that of layering. Understood through Goffman's (1974) term lamination, layering is positioned as a key element of ongoing sense-making practices, that aligns with a conversation analytic mentality rooted in the ethnomethodological notion of the hermeneutic spiral (Mehan and Wood, 1975). Soundcloud is a social media website on which participants post musical compositions. The site transforms the composition into a visualisation of a ‘sound cloud’. The activity of first downloading and then playing the individual file is indicated by the cloud ‘filling up’ (seen in the diagram as an orange colour in the left-hand end of the wave diagram) and progressing along a timeline from left to right. Participants play the composition and write text comments in the box below. As the participant presses the enter/return key, these comments are positioned spatially and temporally within the sound cloud as it plays on the next occasion. Subsequent participants experience both the original composition and the inserted

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012 0378-2166/Crown Copyright © 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

2

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

comments. As they add their own text comments, these become part of the visual--aural experience. Each playing and commenting results in a layering, or lamination, of performance and comments. Rather than ask whether Soundcloud interaction is like talk, by drawing on remix theory this paper understands it to be premised upon the combination of different ‘fundamental techniques’ (Manovich, 2013, p. 25) of conversational practice and structure, and technology mediated music interaction. Social remix practice is implicated in what Lev Manovich (2013) calls ‘deep remixability’ (p. 25), or ‘digital materialism’ (Manovich, 2002, p. 10), the idea that digitisation not only allows for the separation and combination of content -- sound, image, and text -- but also allows for the transference of the content's ‘fundamental techniques, working methods, and ways of representation and expression’ (Manovich, 2013, p. 110). This is seen when texts become 3D animations, sounds become visualised, and live action footage combines with computer generated materials. Manovich's transference of fundamental techniques is seen in Soundcloud when everyday conversational practice is incorporated into technology use. Further, the affordances of the Soundcloud software relates to what Keating (2005) calls the prosthesis of technology, the idea that technology extends human abilities. Specifically, in this case, it allows for the layering or sedimentation of social life as inserted traces of social interaction. The intention guiding this paper is to utilise the remix theory of Manovich to prompt an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic appreciation of the active production of temporality and sequentiality in the activities of the social media site. Conversation Analysis is an approach in Sociology that is concerned to reveal the social actions of actors. Premised upon the work of Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (amongst others) in the 1960s and 1970s CA is ‘the study of talk-in-interaction, the systematic analysis of the kind of talk produced in everyday naturallyoccurring situations of social interaction’’ (Hutchby, 2005, p. 55). Typically, it is based on audio or video recorded interaction, which are transcribed with a specialised form of notation that details its produced qualities (including pauses, false starts, sound elongation, overlap, and the like) and the way each speaking person delivers their talk in ‘turns’ developed by Gail Jefferson. While initially controversial, CA has also been applied to written language use (McHoul, 1982), and forms of online textual interaction (Stommel, 2008; Stommel and Meijman, 2011; Lester and Paulus, 2011[8_TD$IF]; Gibson, 2014; Meredith and Potter, 2013; Meredith and Stokoe, 2014; Paulus et al., 2016) as a form of ‘digital CA’ (Giles et al., 2015). In line with our reasoning here, Giles et al. (2015) note that approaches to online interaction from a CA perspective require a thoroughgoing inquiry into the underlying methodological assumptions, ‘‘the move from an uncritical ‘digitized’ application of CA to a customized version of CA for specific use with online interaction requires the reworking of several tenets of CA in the light of the challenges posed by electronic communication technology’’ (Giles et al., 2015, p. 47). We have in mind a set of issues requiring ‘reworking’ in the existing literature in relation to underlying assumptions in this later work about the sequentiality of turns at talk in online fora. Our argument being that there is still a tendency to ignore the technology mediated nature of online discussion, and to presuppose the fundamental nature of ‘sequence’ within online interactions. Conversational sequence, in our analysis, is ‘achieved’ as a deliberate strategy in line with the findings of Schönfeldt and Golato's (2003) early analysis of chat interaction, ‘‘adjacency in chats is thus an achievement of the participants’ reading of, and selection from, a quickly changing stream of messages addressed to them; it is thus a ‘‘virtual adjacency.’’ This virtual adjacency is not merely a construct on the part of the analysts but a true reading on the part of the chat room participants (p. 251). Unlike chat interaction in which turn placement is dependent upon the timings imposed by computer servers, connection speeds and the like, comments on Soundcloud are deliberately positioned in relation to one another. One might say, therefore, that the ‘achievement’ of sequentiality is an ironic and reflexive activity. Social remix in this sense incorporates not only technology afforded behaviours (of layering) but also the active and reflective incorporation and achievement of transference of fundamental conversational techniques of conversational structuring by the human actor. Our appreciation of social remix will be accomplished through a CA analysis of interaction within the Web version of the Soundcloud site. The examples shown are drawn from a larger analysis of pages drawn from the site. Pages were chosen based upon the amount of inline commentary. 2. Background The relationships between social interaction and technological affordances (Gibson, 1979) as understood through CA is approached by Hutchby (2005). While much of his commentary and analysis is oriented to spoken interaction, he extends this appreciation of technological affordances to Internet relay chat (IRC), a form of textual interaction. While sequentiality is a normal aspect of spoken talk-in-interaction, in IRC the sequential relatedness of messages is ‘achieved’ by participants in creating (reading and writing) the posts, underpinned by the availability of a written permanent record of Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

3

the various textual contributions. In this sense the ‘next turn proof procedure’ (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 729) deployed in everyday spoken interaction -- the idea that in a next turn a speaker shows understanding of the previous turn, and in some sense, reflexively construes its meaning -- is found to be a resource for the writer and reader alike. Expectations of ‘what typically comes next’ becomes a normative basis for adequate reading of the relevance of posts that are often separated and dispersed amongst other posts due to the constraints of the technology that results in sequential disruption in the produced textual record.1 As such this work continues the author's doctoral work (Ashmore and Reed, 2000; [6_TD$IF]Reed and Ashmore, 2000; [6_TD$IF]Reed, 2001, 2009) and more recent interactionalist studies of text-based internet communication, but looks to use these motivations to examine the methodological assumptions of those approaches. It should be made clear then that while the social interaction under study is premised upon musical performance and its receipt, the analysis to follow is not concerned with these activities within a performance frame as such. Rather this paper is concerned to elucidate new forms of technology-mediated interpersonal interactions through the concept of fundamental techniques, and in so doing, extend contemporary approaches to digital discourse (Giles et al., 2015) through the idea of remix and the hermeneutic spiral. Eduardo Navas (2012) provides a definition of remix culture as ‘‘the global activity consisting of the creative and efficient exchange of information made possible by digital technologies that is supported by the practice of cut/copy and paste’’ (Navas, 2012, p. 65). I am less concerned, here, with these large-scale assertions, and more concerned with the incorporation of remix theory into an understanding of social interaction in online spaces. To enable this focus, this paper turns to a more social appreciation of remix centred upon what Goodwin (1979, 2007) and others have called ‘lamination’ or layering. It is lamination that we see in the recording studio, as musical tracks are combined and intertwined, and it is through an examination of the concept of lamination that it is possible to see the ways that social practices of commenting combine with the machinic affordance of replay in the music sharing social media site Soundcloud: ‘recording’ ‘replaying’ and ‘layering’ being the key dynamics of social interaction in this domain.

2.1. Laminations and social remix Erving Goffman offers the term ‘lamination’ in Frame Analysis: ‘‘Given the possibility of a frame that incorporates rekeyings, it becomes convenient to think of each transformation as adding a layer or lamination to the activity’’ (Goffman, 1974, p. 82). By way of example, Goodwin (1981) uses Goffman's term to talk about the anniversary: ‘‘[a]n anniversary is constructed via the lamination of events at two separate moments in time, an original event which becomes the object of celebration, and the anniversary itself’’ (p. 101). Lamination also hints at forms of technical and social sedimentation, that are useful when understanding the accretion of comments in Soundcloud. MacBeth (1999), for example, uses the term to describe the cinematic shot: ‘‘The history of film studies is punctuated by treatments of the directed achievements of the cinematic shot, meaning those highly crafted sequences of continuous action that are the laminations of scripting, direction, acting and equipmental virtuosity’’ (MacBeth, 1999, p. 135). Finally, lamination can be seen to be relevant to social remix, in terms of the manner in which social practice is itself an ongoing matter of sense-making in the hermeneutic spiral. In a text which combines ethnomethodology with phenomenology, Mehan and Wood (1975) outline the distinctive qualities of ‘interpretation’ and ‘understanding’ as being the engines of meaningful social practice, ‘‘This imagery places people within a spiral of meaningfulness. People create meaning, but the world comes to them independently of their interpretive activities . . . I call this image of human being the ‘hermeneutic spiral’’ (p. 194). In more ethnomethodological terms the hermeneutic spiral is premised upon the indexical and reflexive citation and sedimentation of meaningful communicative interaction, which is itself premised upon the documentary method of sense making of Karl Mannheim (Mehan and Wood, 1975, p. 145; Garfinkel, 1967, p. 76). The argument then is that these general principles of meaningful social action prefigure those practices in Soundcloud, and hence draw those technology-mediated interactions back into a general theory of social life. Soundcloud is one more instance of the hermeneutic spiral, albeit with the added advantage of a reified product and record of those practices. Turning this idea around, it is possible to say that ethnomethodology, at least those aspects inspired by the phenomenology of the hermeneutic spiral, is concerned with remix culture as social practice; its working methods and procedures have from the start been oriented to revealing ethnomethods (or ‘fundamental techniques’) of remix in everyday life.

1 Hutchby makes the valuable point that the written record only shows the publicly available actions -- that are the consequence of using the software. The full activities of any participant -- e.g. sitting in front of a screen, typing on a keyboard, screen gaze patterns -- are omitted.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

4

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

2.2. Audience receipt and assessment Unlike a traditional performance in which the audience is co-located in space and time, and in which social convention prefers a simultaneous response, there is no space ‘after’ the performance in Soundcloud, and hence no opportunity for post-performance individual, or collective, receipt (through applause, for example). However, there is an opportunity to comment on the musical piece through textual interaction, and insertion of those texts in the SoundCloud visualisation. There are a variety of things that people do with comments: they might respond to the musical track; they might thank the creator of the track; they might reference their own pages. This paper is concerned with a kind of comment, a discursive act that is called an ‘assessment’ in CA (inter alia Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987; Antaki et al., 2000; Lindström and Mondada, 2009). We are interested in the way assessments, or varieties of assessments, function to do different kinds of work: how they function to engender participant (or audience member) interaction; and the way they convey spontaneous emotional responses. In terms of CA such features and activities resist a simple understanding of sequential interaction, yet, as we will see, participants themselves are in the business of maintaining what I have called previously the ‘sequential integrity’ ([6_TD$IF]Reed, 2009, p. 188; [6_TD$IF]Reed, 2001, see also Gibson, 2014) of the actions within the constraints of the communicative format. Unlike CA we are working back from the formal record (captured in the Soundcloud interface) to reveal a history of behavioural traces. That we do not have the original behaviours to hand, it could be argued, undermines any claim to be analysing ‘naturalistic’ human action and interaction. The counter argument says that these traces are exactly the resources used by humans to make sense to, and of, one another in an ongoing manner. In this sense, we are being true to the social and technological context under investigation, and our findings, while not relevant to the ‘imminent’ experience of ongoing and unfolding social life, nevertheless have analytic value. These findings, we argue, complement those analyses of people in front of computer screens that capture individual ‘interaction’ with the device (Meredith and Potter, 2013). 3. Data collection The data used for this paper were gathered through the web based version of the Soundcloud music sharing site in January 2014. In total 20 compositions were examined, with the 2 examples used here due to the number and range of comments inserted into the visualisation. However, we judge these to be typical instances across the total sample. The examples shown are simple screen captures of moments in the playback of the performance. Given that this is a visual and textual medium, there was no need to transcribe the instance by either transferring the activities to an alternative mode (speech to text for example), nor adding descriptive detailing (such as that seen in the transcription of gestures and embodied movements). 4. Analysis The examples in the following analysis are taken from the Soundcloud pages of an artist called Scanner, real name Robin Rimbaud. Rimbaud is famous for live musical performances in the 1990s, in which he captured mobile phone and police radio conversations, and incorporated them into his live set. We follow the CA method of collections, wherein we present instances of similar interactional phenomenon to build a case for their analytic validity. We will use two of his compositions to show some early analytic findings, with a focus on the layering of social action in line with our conceptual focus on ‘social remix’ and the hermeneutic spiral. This is a track by Scanner called ‘‘Memories Amando’’ (https:// soundcloud.com/scanner/memories).2[6_TD$IF] The following analysis gives examples of three basic kinds of assessments: 1. The single word assessment with and without additions, in relation to ‘‘doing spontaneity’’; 2. Music-related or reference-latched assessments, that work through content referencing and visual positioning; and, 3. ‘Second assessments’, in relation to the way they function sequentially in relation to first assessments, yet are temporally distal -- that is (using a term from Computer Mediated Communication) produced ‘asynchronously’ (Garcia and Jacobs, 1999). This last assessment example will be used to pursue an examination of temporality and the engineered (‘achieved’) nature of sequentiality through layering, by examining the date stamps on the comments (Fig. 1). 4.1. Single-word assessments We start by looking at examples of single word assessments inserted into the Soundcloud visualisation of the music track ‘Amando’ by Scanner. 2

Please note, the data was extracted in 2014 and the interface for Soundcloud has subsequently been redesigned.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._1)TD$IG]

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

5

Fig. 1. Soundcloud Image 1 -- Memories Amando.

Fig. 2. Soundcloud Image 2 -- Memories Amando.

After six seconds of music playback musicforbankers has inserted the text ‘Beautiful!’’ (Fig. 2). Two seconds later Daniel Korinek comments ‘overhelming!!! (probably meaning overwhelming3) (Fig. 3). Later in the track at one minute and forty-eight seconds RUI RAIO X has inserted the text ‘‘nice’’ (Fig. 4). At two minutes and twenty-one seconds, Paul Lewin writes the comments ‘lush’ (Fig. 5). At 3.05 trockenmoos has commented ‘‘beautiful’’ with three exclamation marks (Fig. 6). ‘‘In one sense these kinds of exclamations and evaluations are unremarkable. They can be seen as a form of what Goffman (1981) calls ‘response cries’. More typically a form of self-talk in everyday life, they nevertheless implicate a form of emotional expression. Goffman describes them as ‘exclamatory interjections . . . We see such ‘expression’ as a natural overflowing, a flooding up of previously contained feeling, a bursting of normal restraints, a case of being caught off guard’’ (p. 99). They occur routinely in both spoken and written language. A key feature of these kinds of assessments is their indexical character. That is, they are entirely dependent upon their context of use for their sense and reference (in this case, visually in the temporal and spatial position in which they are situated in the Soundcloud visualisation, and aurally, in relation to the progression of the musical sound). If we were to examine the textual turn in isolation, quite what is being assessed is unknown; the valance of the exclamation is ‘empty’ in and of itself if it is not indexed by the surrounding social context. It is a shortcoming of a textual format such as a journal article that it is not possible to play the segment of music preceding the assessment so that the reader can situate the

3 Spelling mistakes are a regular aspect of participant comments, possibly because they are written quickly, and because there is no opportunity to edit comments once added.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._3)TD$IG] 6

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

Fig. 3. Soundcloud Image 3 -- Memories Amando.

[(Fig._4)TD$IG]

Fig. 4. Soundcloud Image 4 -- Memories Amando.

[(Fig._5)TD$IG]

Fig. 5. Soundcloud Image 5 -- Memories Amando.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._6)TD$IG]

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

7

Fig. 6. Soundcloud Image 6 -- Memories Amando.

textual comments in the musical playback. However, readers are directed to the relevant Soundcloud page (by searching Soundcloud for ‘Memories Amando’). The inserted single-word assessments ‘nice’, ‘lush’ or ‘beautiful’ act as ‘situated’ assessments, in the sense that they are positioned on the time line by the participant. Such assessments act to construct something like an embodied or visceral response, that is somewhat like Wiggin's (2002) notion of pleasure construction in talk about food, specifically in what she calls the ‘gustatory mmm’ assessment utterance. Here the utterance ‘mmm’ is produced in social situations involving food consumption. In food assessment, she tells us, ‘‘the gustatory mmm highlight[s] three key features of pleasure construction: immediacy, spontaneity, and vagueness’’ (p. 322). Gustatory mmms are deployed, and accepted, as complete turns at talk, and positioned strategically within mealtime interaction, such as during what Mondada (2009) calls the ‘discovery phase’ of the meal, when the food is served up or given out. Gustatory mmms are also used when the conversation ‘runs dry,’ or to curtail and avoid conflict or argument (Wiggins, 2002). Wiggins identifies pleasure responses (‘‘mmm’’) and disgust markers (‘‘eugh‘‘, ‘‘yuck’’) as a forms of response cry and notes that they tend to be ‘turn initial’, occurring at the beginning of a speaker's turn. They are often produced alone, or followed by a minimal phrase (see later). We can see these qualities of immediacy spontaneity and vagueness in the use of words such as ‘‘beautiful’’ ‘‘nice’’ and ‘‘lush’’, which do not reference elements of the composition directly, but work to convey emotional engagement. They are set alone, (often) contain few letters, include emphasis through exclamation marks, and convey a rushed activity through features like spelling mistakes. More particularly, in relation to the presentation of a musical piece, they attain their meaning through their positioning and situated-ness within the Soundcloud graphical interface. An important aspect of these textual comments is that once ‘sent’ and positioned within the Soundcloud visualisation, they remain there for the next listener of the track. On each occasion, then, the participant is adding to the track by layering their comment on top of the visualisation. This layering is not accomplished in simple temporal order, however; comments may be created at different times, and then positioned to be physically proximate and ordered in the Soundcloud visualisation. Here we see the first indication of what we are calling social remix. We will develop this point, when we turn to second assessments. For now, we should keep in mind the sedimentation of musical track and social action of commenting, to underpin the ‘sociotechnical’ nature of social remix. 4.2. Single word assessment with additions Single-word assessments are also combined with further text, or what might be called additions or extensions. Taking a line from Goffman (1981), they can be seen to engender a change of ‘footing’ (p. 111). Goffman's analysis of response cries notes that the spoken phrase ‘I knew it! Did you have to?’’ is comprised of two ‘moves’: a form of ‘self-talk’ in the first sentence, and a form of ‘conventionally directed communication’. It is this second element that warrants a second turn (or ‘dialogue’ or ‘interchange’ in Goffman's terminology). In CA, we might say that while the expressive turn may stand alone as a single utterance, and implicate no second turn, the second element produced as an assessment, implicates a second assessment. Usually additions or extensions are noted through punctuation, either a comma, full-stop or a semi-colon. We have a couple of examples in the Scanner track. At 2.13 autumna writes ‘‘amazing, once again!’’ (Fig. 7). Note first that there is no reason for the comma, the phrase ‘‘amazing once again’’ would work without it. Spoken out loud, the comma implies a rest and parses the textual utterance as having two elements. Cutting the comment up with a Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._7)TD$IG] 8

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

[(Fig._8)TD$IG]

Fig. 7. Soundcloud Image 7 -- Memories Amando.

Fig. 8. Soundcloud Image 8 -- Memories Amando.

comma puts ‘amazing’ first and sets it up as a one-word assessment which is still immediate, spontaneous, and vague, but then provides emphasis through the imputed earlier positive experience of this, or another, track with ‘once again!’’. At times, what might be a single-word assessment elsewhere gets incorporated into an addition. Here we see RuMar Music start with a single-word assessment ‘wow’, but then add ‘this is amazing’ (Fig. 8). TraisKin's ‘‘amazing. thanks for sharing’’ (Fig. 9) works slightly differently. Again, it contains a single-word assessment ‘amazing’, but this time the second section stands alone and acts as a new statement addition rather than a continuation, clarification or amplification of the assessment. At 2.04 Heimbecker's ‘‘nice, very neo romantic, love it’’ (Fig. 10) has a three-part structure, starting with a single-word assessment, followed by a clarification, and then what we might call a general statement assessment ‘love it’. We haven’t time to look at this type of phrase, but there are a few of them in this clip, including ‘lovely stuff’, ‘great work’ and ‘beautiful stuff’. There is a second order of initial assessments which are less immediate. Consider how the comments by Bakenshake at 1.46: ‘‘This is niiiice. I love it.’’ (Fig. 11) works through the additional vowels inserted in nice, indicating emphasis through a spoken-like phonetic extension. Arguably in that niiiiice is preceded by ‘This is’ it comes across as a less immediate or visceral response and is instead a more measured (yet expressive) evaluation.4 These texts do not stand alone of course, they are embedded in the visualisation, and hence layered upon the music. We want to make then a general point: single word assessments can act as a spontaneous expressive act, and in this way

4 Implied vocalisation through textual means is an instance of where the ‘fundamental techniques’ of produced speech are transferred in to the technology medium.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

[(Fig._9)TD$IG]

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

Fig. 9. Soundcloud Image 9 -- Memories Amando.

[(Fig._10)TD$IG]

Fig. 10. Soundcloud Image 10 -- Memories Amando.

[(Fig._1)TD$IG]

Fig. 11. Soundcloud Image 11 -- Memories Amando.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

9

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._12)TD$IG] 10

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

Fig. 12. Soundcloud Image 12 -- Memories Amando.

form single instances of participant engagement that do not necessarily warrant a follow-on turn. As we will see in the later analysis, the addition of an assessment element that changes the footing of the comment can implicate a following turn, formed as an agreement or disagreement. Before moving on to show these ‘second assessments’, we wish to detail one further set of instances to underline the layered quality of assessments. 4.3. Referent-latched assessments As we have already noted it is not easy to make claims about the relationship between the comments and the replayed music. However, there are some assessment comments that specify aspects of the music, and hence the relationship is easier to see. These ‘referent-latched assessments’ are a class of assessments that contain work to situate them and make them relevant to particular aspects of the composition. At the beginning of the Soundcloud visualisation the comment by BlackLupus, ‘‘Drums are perfect;[9_TD$IF])’’ (Fig. 12) refers to the drum sounds that are hearable from the beginning of the track. By referencing the drums in the text, BlackLupus foregrounds them as key component of the music. This comment conveys a form of discernment and perceptual skill; it is not just the general sound that is remarkable, but aspects of it. Later there is a sample of an operatic voice incorporated in the mix. Dougie Evans comments ‘‘The vocals are incredible’’ (Fig. 13). Again, an aspect of the replayed sound is foregrounded and perceptually separated from the track.

[(Fig._13)TD$IG]

Fig. 13. Soundcloud Image 13 -- Memories Amando.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._14)TD$IG]

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

11

Fig. 14. Soundcloud Image 14 -- Memories Amando.

The comments of both Blacklupus and Dougie Evans are music related. That is, they refer to aspects of the musical composition. In these cases, however, the referenced elements are not specific to a moment in the composition because the drums and the voice continue for a period of time. Unlike the single word assessments shown earlier, which locate the emotional expressive act at a particular point, the comments about the composition more generally are not reliant upon a specific placement within the Soundcloud timeline visualisation for their relevance. They are therefore what we might call forms of ‘generic assessment’ that stand back from the productional detail and form a type of ‘review’ of the musical piece. By specifying a compositional element, however, they index aspects of the piece. There are instances of generic assessment which are is situated at a particular moment in the visualisation of the musical piece, the moment when the musical aspect commented on reappears or restarts, and is ‘seeable’ in the Soundcloud visualisation. Soola Sound Spectacular writes ‘fantastic samples and stellar production’ (Fig. 14). This is a comment about something more than the content of the musical composition, it is about the activity of composing, using the notion of ‘samples’ and ‘production’ to show epistemic access. These being technical terms used to describe the copying of sounds (‘sample’) and technique of musical mixing (‘production’) respectively. It is not ‘located’ through indexing a specific compositional element. The comment is positioned immediately after the sampled voice returns to the track. To hear this, we would need to play the segment of music. However, it can also be seen because the lack a vocal track and accompanying instrumentation reduces the volume of the track, and hence changes the sound wave representation (note the dip in the cloud visualisation immediately before the inserted comment). The comment's relevance is contextualised by what has just happened. It is, perhaps, a form of visual deixis. This is a tentative analytic assertion, and perhaps requires further instances to support the claim made. As with pointing and other forms of deixis in embodied interaction, the referent of the situated assessment is entirely contingent upon the common perspective of listener and commenter in relation to the composition, and its visualised playback. It is indexical. To understand its focus, we too must be listening and viewing the musical performance. Pointing is also reflexive in that the object is construed in activity, made perceptually relevant through the documentary method which comprises the hermeneutic spiral. Pointing at something, simultaneously constructs the thing as object to be pointed at, and makes it available for further scrutiny. ‘That thing there’ becomes an object through the lamination of the participant comment over the musical performance. Similarly, the focus of attention within the musical composition is a matter of deixic action in the comment across the range of general assessments that we have detailed. 4.4. Second assessments The second form of assessment extends from this point about the reflexively construed referent. Many of the comments examined could be first assessments in the terminology of CA, which make relevant a second assessment, or agreement or disagreement with that assessment. However, as noted, assessments constructed as response cries, spontaneous expressions of emotional response, do not necessarily implicate a second assessment because they are not produced as a form of ‘directed communication’ in Goffman's terms -- they can stand as single turns. Here is an example of a first and second assessment. It is taken from another track by Scanner called ‘Souvenir’. At two minutes and thirteen seconds a participant called DVNT comments ‘‘Nice!’’, a single-word assessment, indexical and Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._15)TD$IG] 12

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

Fig. 15. Soundcloud Image 15 -- Memories Amando.

[(Fig._17)TD$IG]

[(Fig._16)TD$IG]

Fig. 16. Soundcloud Image 16 -- Memories Amando.

Fig. 17. Soundcloud Image 17 -- Memories Amando.

visually positioned music related assessment in that it requires the musical performance for its meaning and referent (Fig. 15). Nine second later in the Soundcloud visualisation, Sad Soul Circus contributes ‘‘Very nice indeed.’’ (2.22 s[10_TD$IF]) (Fig. 16). Here the upgrade is accomplished through two intensifier elements positioned before and after the repeated assessment of ‘nice’ (Fig. 20). (https://soundcloud.com/scanner/souvenir). The production of a first assessment followed by a second assessment, we might say, is unsurprising and a routine action in talk-in-interaction. However, we need to be clear that the presentation of the comments in this way is an accomplishment, born of the knowing manipulation of the technological affordances of the Soundcloud application. This becomes apparent when we look at when the comments were produced[1_TD$IF]. At twenty-three seconds into the Soundcloud visualisation a participant with an asci face for a name writes ‘‘pretty damn cool; it makes we want to move’’ (Fig. 17). This is a two-part assessment, with a general assessment before the [(Fig._18)TD$IG]semi-colon and the addition of a clarification in the second half. Twenty-two seconds later at 0.45 (Fig. 18), Ambient Shane

Fig. 18. Soundcloud Image 18 -- Memories Amando.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._19)TD$IG]

[(Fig._20)TD$IG]

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

13

Fig. 19. Soundcloud Image 19 -- Souvenir.

Fig. 20. Soundcloud Image 20 -- Souvenir.

writes ‘‘Very cool indeed, great vibe going on here robin -- TUNE:’’. At the point of collection there were no other comments in between these two in the visualisation, and hence as a person plays the piece the two comments are experienced sequentially-next in the timeline. Ambient Shane's upgrade of asci's ‘‘pretty damn cool’’ to ‘‘very cool indeed’’ is a typical move in second assessments which simultaneously have a preference structure of agreement with positive assessments, with the use of an ‘intensifier’ modification -- ‘very’ -- used to upgrade the assessment (Pomerantz, 1984, p. 65). There is, then, a distinction to be had between the creation of the comment, i.e. the moment in time the user wrote the comment and embedded it in the Soundcloud visualisation, and the turn-design of the comment, i.e. the content and positioning of the comment in the visualisation. The Soundcloud site allows for the presentation of the comments in a list, which includes the date of production (seen when hovering the mouse over the comment). If we look at the first and second assessment in our example we see that asci's ‘‘pretty damn cool’’ was written on the 17th of September 2010 (Fig. 19), while the upgraded second assessment by Ambient Shane, was written on the 21st of November 2013 (Fig. 20), over three years later. Our argument is this: the two comments are topically related and while not produced in a temporally proximate manner, are hearably related in that they are produced and positioned in relation to one another to be heard as ‘turns at talk’. Developing the argument about ‘sequential integrity’ ([6_TD$IF]Reed, 2009), we argue that the members’ methods of verbal conversational turn-taking are knowingly transposed into the textual format. This entails the transference of a ‘fundamental technique’ from naturalistic conversation into the technology mediated activities. Textual comments are created to be not only ‘speech-like’ but also ‘conversation-like’; they are actively produced not only in terms of the form of language used, but also in relation to the structure of social interaction. 4.5. Technological and social temporalities There is an important point to be made at this point. We have primarily been looking at the positioning of the comments in the Soundcloud visualisation, which enacts a temporal ordering underpinned by the ‘playback timeline’ in the application. We call this a technological temporal ordering precisely because the ‘real’ or social temporal ordering of comment creation is different to this. We can bring out this social temporal ordering by viewing the comments as a list. This is a feature within the Soundcloud application[2_TD$IF]. Accompanying each Soundcloud visualisation is a list of the comments made, ordered by time stamp in days, months or years. By hovering the cursor over the date stamp we get the exact day that the comment was created. So, for example, the incorrectly spelled ‘‘overwhelming’’ produced by Daniel Korinek, in our earlier example, was written 1 month before the date it was collected by the author, on the 5th of January, [1_TD$IF]2014 (Fig. 21). The comment by musicforbankers, which occurs 2 12_TD$IF]s[ econds earlier in the Soundcloud visualisation than that by Daniel Korinek, at 0.05, was written the day before on the 4th of January (Fig. 22). In this case the temporal ordering of the composition on the visualisation is consistent with the real time temporal ordering. On one day, a person contributes a comment, on the next day someone contributes another comment, but positions it a couple of second later in the Soundcloud visualisation. However, there are often greater temporal discrepancies. Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._21)TD$IG] 14

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

Fig. 21. Soundcloud Image 21 -- Memories Amando.

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

Fig. 22. Soundcloud Image 22 -- Memories Amando.

[(Fig._23)TD$IG]

Fig. 23. Soundcloud Image 23 -- Memories Amando.

If we look at our second example again, ‘‘Nice’’ by DVNT, it was written on the 29th November 2011 (Fig. 23), while the upgraded second assessment, positioned eight seconds later, in the Soundcloud by Sad Soul Circus was written on the 22nd December 2011 (Fig. 24). The temporal orderings are consistent but there is a greater gap of twenty-three days. As we can see from the comments list, they were not written consecutively in real time. Other participants contributed comments in between. Indeed, this is a potential problem for the visualisation mechanism in Soundcloud; in theory, it is possible for another participant to interrupt the (visually) ‘produced’ sequentiality of two messages at any later stage. There is, therefore, an underlying affordance of visual sequential disruption in Soundcloud. Obviously the larger the temporally represented period between comments, the greater opportunity for intervening comments to [(Fig._24)TD$IG]appear.

Fig. 24. Soundcloud Image 24 -- Memories Amando.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

15

4.6. Sequential Integrity in Soundcloud When sequentiality is implicated, as with a second assessment, sequentiality and temporality have a relationship, with the second assessment written sometime after the first assessment. However, such relationships are far from universal, with comments early in the Soundcloud visualisation written a long time after those positioned later. We might say that there is an order relationship with first and second assessment, but that the close sequential relationship is a matter of interactional work. Namely a combination of an appropriately written comment (as upgrade for example) and[3_TD$IF] deliberate positioning immediately following the first assessment. If there is too large a ‘space’ or time gap we do see inserted comments between first and second assessments, which opens the possibility that we have already been looking at just such an instance of ‘produced’ sequentiality but have ignored it because of intervening comments and the lack of obvious topicality and comment construction. It is not something we can deal with here; the phenomenon will be considered in future analysis. 5. Discussion This paper is primarily a contribution to the emerging field of ‘digital CA’ (Giles et al., 2015). It is concerned with developing the methodology of digital CA analysis in relation to new forms of computer mediated communication, specifically in relation to established notions of ‘synchronous’ and ‘asynchronous’ interaction, and presents findings that borrow the concept of ‘deep remix’ to enable an appreciation of practices afforded by those technologies. Coining the term ‘social remix’ allows for a realisation of the ironic and achieved nature of ‘turn-taking’ and ‘sequence’ of comments in the Soundcloud social media site, by tracing a line between the technology based notion of ‘remix’ through the social practice of lamination grounded in the philosophical notion of the hermeneutic spiral. Therefore, it directly addresses those taken for granted notions of ‘turns-at-talk’ present in this literature, and provides a pause for reflection on what assumptions are being incorporated into emerging analysis. As a consequence of a focus on technology mediated communication, the paper also contributes to wider development in relation to the study of digital discourse (Thurlow and Mroczek, 2011), and the affordances of technology as extending the opportunities for social action (Keating, 2005). Arguably in relation to the focus on Soundcloud, it also extends work in the CA of performance and interaction (see the author's work for example on performance instruction, e.g. [6_TD$IF]Reed, 2015). However, these potential contributions are not the primary focus, and hence the relevance of this work to those areas will need to wait on future writing. This paper has looked to apply a conversation analytic mentality to Soundcloud interaction to address the way that participation is a layered or laminated process. That comments are inserted into the visualisation of the performance piece means that they are available on every next viewing and as such constitute a new performance object -- one that carries with it accumulated or sedimented responses. This form of ongoing practice in Soundcloud can be incorporated into a general theory of social action and meaning through the ethnomethodological notion of the hermeneutic spiral and the conversation analytic correlate of this, turn-by-turn sense making. The key difference being that these are ‘technologically afforded’ social actions that result in concrete layerings of textual meanings. The analysis has identified the use of first assessments, as spontaneous expressions of emotion response that are indexically linked to the musical performance and visual representation, and second assessments that are designed to be linked to first assessments with upgraded assessment constructions. In that the first assessments are indexical, and tied to the contextual features of the performance; second assessments are simultaneously a product of the affordances of the software and the affordances of conversational norms and practices. In that these are accomplished, they are noticeably ‘known’ techniques of sense-making. In that they combine both technological afforded behaviours and conversation-like practice, they combine two ‘fundamental techniques’ drawn from each domain. In this sense the paper draws CA back to its ethnomethodological roots by identifying the sense-making practices of Soundcloud interaction. These are premised upon two kinds of temporal ordering, which we have called technological and social. Another way to make this distinction is to talk of the ‘compositional’ ordering, which relies upon the fundamental techniques of mundane face-to-face conversation for its logic and achievement, and ‘real time’ temporal ordering, which rests on the fundamental techniques of asynchronous interaction to enable the creation and positioning of textual comments in a meaningful way. The activities of assessment, and the reflexive constitution of referents in the musical composition, through spontaneous emotional responses, reference to musical content, and reference to structural elements of composition itself, reconfigure and combine with the original composition performance in an ongoing manner. The primary point then is that composition time ordering, and conversational flow is essentially ironic. It is a knowingly produced and accomplished representation of conversation-like relatedness. Social remix practice, then, includes these opportunities for creative engagement with different temporal orderings. The reinstatement of sequential relatedness, and the opportunity to respond as though spontaneously and emotionally engaged are a consequence of the affordances of the software. Such arrangements disrupt the typical temporal ordering Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

16

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

of performance and receipt, and disrupt the typical notion of a ‘remix’. By introducing the concept of ‘social remix practice’ this paper attempts to foreground a form of remix culture that is a consequence of the ongoing, and ‘emergent’ nature of cultural practice. In addition, it addresses existing assumptions in the study of computer mediated communication. Garcia and Jacobs’ (1999) focus on new communication technology formats and how they change the nature of turn-taking. They introduced the term ‘quasi-synchronous’ communication to describe forms of communication that are ‘conversation-like’ but are plainly not produced by participants at the same time. In Soundcloud the participant can interact with a musical composition in an asynchronous manner; comments can be days, months, or even years apart. Yet participants can interact with other participants in a pseudo-sequential manner, that links a comment to the performance, and one comment to another, in ways that express temporal relatedness and meaningful interaction. That these linkages are accomplished through existing formats of assessment formation and turn-design, shows up not only the creative and emergent nature of interactional relatedness but also the fundamental techniques of conversational structuring. This paper extends this prior work by detailing how such quasi-synchronicity is achieved, and by revealing the fundamental techniques of both conversational practice and technological affordance. 6. Conclusion Digital CA is an emerging field in which the methodological assumptions of CA are being questioned and new responses to multimodal and temporally disruptive technologies are being created. By forming an analysis of the social media site Soundcloud this paper has drawn on the ‘analytic mentality’ of CA and the hermeneutic spiral in ethnomethodology, and adapted them through an appreciation of aspects of remix theory to show the sense-making practices present. The revealed behaviours are conceived as social remix practice. These practices disrupt and question received notions of ‘sequence’ in CA and ‘asynchrony’ in CMC. It is hoped that these questions will propel methodological discussion and development in the future. References Antaki, Charles, Houtkoop-Steenstra, Henneke, Rapley, Mark, 2000. ‘‘Brilliant. Next question. . .’’: high-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 33 (3), 235--262. Ashmore, Malcolm, Reed, D.J., 2000. Innocence and nostalgia in conversation analysis: the dynamic relations of tape and transcript. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung (Forum Qual. Soc. Res.).1 (3). Garcia, Angela C., Jacobs, Jennifer B., 1999. The eyes of the beholder: understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computermediated communication. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 32 (4), 337--367. Garfinkel, Harold, 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge. Gibson, James J., 1979. The theory of affordances. In: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Gibson, Will J., 2014. Sequential order in multimodal discourse: talk and text in online educational interaction. Discourse Commun. 8 (1), 63--83. Giles, David, Stommel, Wyke, Paulus, Trena, Lester, Jessica, Reed, D.J., 2015. Microanalysis of online data: the methodological development of ‘‘digital CA’’. Discourse Context Media 7, 45--51. Goffman, Erving, 1974. Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Northeastern University Press, Boston. Goffman, Erving, 1981. Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Goodwin, Charles, 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In: Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Press, New York, pp. 97--121. Goodwin, Charles, 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press, New York. Goodwin, Charles, 2007. Interactive footing. In: Holt, E., Clift, R. (Eds.), Reported Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 16--46. Goodwin, Charles, Goodwin, Marjorie H., 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Pap. Pragmat. 1 (1), 1--54. Hutchby, Ian, 2005. Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting (Issues in Cultural & Media Studies). Open University Press. Keating, Elizabeth, 2005. Homo prostheticus: problematizing the notions of activity and computer mediated interaction. Discourse Stud. 7 (4--5), 527--545. Lester, Jessica N., Paulus, Trena M., 2011. Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context. Discourse Stud. 13 (6), 671--686. Lindström, Anna, Mondada FT Lorenza, 2009. Assessments in social interaction: introduction to the special issue. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 42 (4), 299--308. MacBeth, Doug, 1999. Glances, trances, and their relevance for a visual sociology. In: Jalbert, P. (Ed.), Media Studies: Ethnomethodological Approaches. University Press of America, Lanham, NY/Oxford, pp. 135--170. Manovich, Lev, 2002. The Language of New Media. The MIT Press. Manovich, Lev, 2007. What Comes After Remix. Retrieved http://manovich.net/content/04-projects/054-what-comes-after-remix/ 54_article_2007.pdf (05.05.10) Manovich, Lev, 2013. Software Takes Command. A&C Black.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012

+ Models

PRAGMA-4308; No. of Pages 17

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2017) xxx--xxx

17

McHoul, Alec, 1982. Telling How Text Talk: Essays on Reading and Ethnomethodology. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Mehan, Hugh, Wood, Houston, 1975. The Reality of Ethonomethodology. Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York/London. Meredith, Joanne, Potter, Jonathan, 2013. Conversation analysis and electronic interactions: methodological, analytic and technical considerations. In: Hwee, L. Lim, Fay, Sudweeks (Eds.), Innovative Methods and Technologies for Electronic Discourse Analysis. IGI Global, pp. 370--375. Meredith, Joanne, Stokoe, Elizabeth, 2014. Repair: comparing Facebook ‘chat’ with spoken interaction. Discourse Commun. 8 (2), 181--207. Mondada, Lorenza, 2009. The methodical organization of talking and eating: assessments in dinner conversations. Food Qual. Prefer. 20 (8), 558--571. Navas, Eduardo, 2012. Remix Theory: The Aesthetics of Sampling. Springer. Paulus, Trena, Warren, Amber, Lester, Jessica N., 2016. Applying conversation analysis methods to online talk: a literature review. Discourse Context Media. Pomerantz, Annita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments. Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Open University, London. Reed, D.J., 2001. ’Making conversation’: sequential integrity and the local management of interaction on Internet newsgroups. In: 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34). IEEE Computer Society. Reed, D.J., 2009. Observing and Quoting Newsgroup Messages: Method and Phenomenon in the Hermeneutic Spiral (Published PhD). LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Reed, D.J., 2015. Relinquishing in musical masterclasses: embodied action in interactional projects. J. Pragmat. 89, 31--49. Reed, D.J., Ashmore, Malcolm, 2000. The naturally-occurring chat machine. J. Media Cult. 3 (4). Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanual, Jefferson, Gail, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696--735. Schönfeldt, Julianne, Golato, Andrea, 2003. Repair in chats: a conversation analytic approach. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 36 (3), 241--284. Stommel, Wyke, 2008. Conversation analysis and community of practice as approaches to studying online community. Lang. Internet 5 (5), 1--22. Stommel, Wyke, Meijman, Frans J., 2011. The use of conversation analysis to study social accessibility of an online support group on eating disorders. Glob. Health Promot. 18 (2), 18--26. Thurlow, Crispin, Mroczek, Kristine, 2011. Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford University Press on Demand. Wiggins, Sally, 2002. Talking with your mouth full: gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 35 (3), 311--336.

Please cite this article in press as: Reed, D.J., Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012